Keystone XL: What good would rejection do?

Over the weekend, hundreds of area residents joined in a nationwide protest meant to dissuade President Barack Obama from approving Canada’s plan to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would enable our northern neighbor to send its immense reserves of heavy, oil-like bitumen from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries.

We welcome protest. It’s a great American tradition. But opposing Keystone because its approval will lead to further fossil-fuel pollution simply doesn’t make sense. If the president rejects the project, Canada will instead construct a pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, where it will build refineries and eventually ship most of the refined bitumen to Asia – primarily fast-growing China.

As honest liberals like New York Times columnist Joe Nocera acknowledge, blocking Keystone wouldn’t reduce fossil-fuel production or use. It would harm our closest ally and benefit our No. 1 geopolitical rival.

So what does blocking the project do? Please environmentalists – even though it doesn’t affect the fossil fuels status quo. As we hope the president realizes, this is daft.